From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/28/2025 7:02 PM, jillery wrote:   
   > On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:47:46 -0500, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/28/2025 12:07 AM, jillery wrote:   
   >>> Here's a link to a 32-minute Youtube video I found both entertaining   
   >>> and informative:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>> Sponsored by Center For Inquiry.  Forrest Valkai identifies specific   
   >>> examples of some standard Creationist anti-evolution arguments, and   
   >>> then gives his answers to them.  For those allergic to clicking on   
   >>> Youtube videos, here are his first few examples:   
   >>>   
   >>>      ***   
   >>>   
   >>> @2:47 Is it just me or is it impossible to line up animals in the way   
   >>> they "evolved"?   
   >>   
   >> Could be one of the reasons why the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy,   
   >> that were given in the order in which they must have occurred in this   
   >> universe, killed ID-creationism on TO.  It is why Sewell dropped the   
   >> flagellum as a designed machine and the Cambrian explosion out of the   
   >> Top Six.  IDiots can't deal with the fact that life evolved on this   
   >> planet in a different order than that depicted in the Bible.  For YEC   
   >> there was no period of time over a billion years ago when bacteria were   
   >> evolving the flagellum.  There was no Cambrian explosion over half a   
   >> billion years ago that resulted in a multitude of sea creatures over a   
   >> hundred million years before land plants evolved.  The Biblical order of   
   >> creation doesn't match up with what actually happened.  The angiosperm   
   >> plants described in the Bible were not created before sea creatures.   
   >> They were created after terrestrial tetrapod vertebrates had evolved,   
   >> and after Dinos were walking around.   
   >   
   >   
   > God knows the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally ;-)   
   >   
   >   
   >> As written this isn't the usual creationist argument against evolution.   
   >> It is a no brainer that you can just take the human lineage and work   
   >> back through the types of animals that would have needed to exist.   
   >> Humans then apes, then monkeys, then prosimians, and then primates like   
   >> tree shrews.  Normally they have the argument about why these obvious   
   >> links still exist.  "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still   
   >> monkeys?"  I do recall the claim that we can't line up evolutionary   
   >> examples from existing species.  There has always been the fossil gap   
   >> stupidity, but the claim is that things like apes and monkeys should not   
   >> exist if evolution were true.  Creationists do not understand the   
   >> concept of descent with modification from a common ancestor.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> @3:36 So, if we're taking that view of Darwinism we can ask how could   
   >>> something like this, something like a mouse trap, be put together one   
   >>> tiny step at a time?   
   >>   
   >> The failure of IC was likely one of the main reasons why the ID perps   
   >> decided to start running the Bait and switch instead of teach their "ID   
   >> science" in the public schools.  The ID perps already knew that their   
   >> junk like gaps in the fossil record, fine tuning, and Cambrian explosion   
   >> god-of-the-gaps denial had already failed as scientific creationism.   
   >   
   >   
   > Only God knows why this essay didn't make Behe crawl back into his   
   > irreducibly complex mouse hole.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >   
   >>> @3:48 There are transitions within kinds but not from one kind to   
   >>> another kind.  A cat doesn't evolve into a dog or vice versa.   
   >>   
   >> Just a failure to understand descent with modification from a common   
   >> ancestor.  Carnivores like cats and dogs evolved from hooved mammals.   
   >   
   >   
   > It's also an evolutionary strawman;  no crocoducks need apply.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> @3:56 Both humans and squid have a lens that projects an image onto a   
   >>> retina.  That means that a very similar eye had to evolve twice.   
   >>   
   >> The creationist denial is that the eye could not have evolved.  It is   
   >> the science side that has noted that the camera lens eye has evolved   
   >> independently twice, and that mollusca (squids) have a better designed   
   >> eye.  The vertebrate eye started to evolve in cordates, and their simple   
   >> brains were organized with the support cells for photoreceptors in   
   >> front.  This created forward pointed photoreceptors to have the support   
   >> cells on the wrong side.  The support cells and blood vessels created a   
   >> layer in front of the photoreceptors, and a blind spot was needed to be   
   >> created in order to get this backwards network to the rear of the eye.   
   >> For mollusca the support cells and blood vessels evolved to be behind   
   >> the photoreceptors so that no blind spot was needed to be created.  So   
   >> the eyes evolved independently, and we know that in cordates with   
   >> rudimentary "eyes" with no lens or eye structure, they have the support   
   >> cells in front of the photoreceptor cells.  So the position of the   
   >> support cells was just an accident of evolution in the ancestors of   
   >> vertebrates.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)